SXSW Cancels Panels On Harassment Due To Harassment (sxsw.com) 618
New submitter rMortyH writes: Two panels on online harassment in gaming scheduled for the upcoming South by Southwest festival have been cancelled due to online harassment and threats. According to a statement from SXSW Director Hugh Forrest, "... in the seven days since announcing these two sessions, SXSW has received numerous threats of on-site violence related to this programming. ... If people can not agree, disagree and embrace new ways of thinking in a safe and secure place that is free of online and offline harassment, then this marketplace of ideas is inevitably compromised."
Or perhaps... (Score:2, Insightful)
People are tired of the politically correct narrative, and this is their way of rebelling.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah man, it's just about ethics in game journalism.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with a "politically correct narrative." This is a bunch of asshole teenagers on the internet being led by a couple basement dwelling 40 year olds who are mad at everyone for no good reason.
It's the dregs of humanity...on the internet...being assholes. Plain and simple.
Not a single "threat" would have been followed through on because these people either never leave their homes, or they're still under their parent's jurisdiction.
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:4, Interesting)
Bullshit.
The feminists like Anita Sarkesian and Zoe Quinn always play the victim card but never back up what they say.
If Gamergate taught me anything, it was to start looking really critically at wikipedia, because I was surprised at how their article on GG has nothing to do with reality. Since I followed this from the beginning. Of course, they only cite as "truth" the very journals and journalists that were directly involved in the scandals to begin with.
And here is this feminist shit again. In another victim ruse. Basement dwelling losers don't give a shit about these too. Threats wouldn't be followed up on, not because they're losers, it's because I don't think the threats exist in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What kind of proof would satisfy you? Why aren't you satisfied with the numerous screencaps, videos, actual threats given, etc. etc. especially in light of the r9k murders?
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd also accept threat notifications submitted to the FBI and deemed credible, as opposed to submitted to twitter and deemed fund-able.
If words were that worrisome, pretty sure most of us would be dead by that Navy Seal that likes to post.
Re: (Score:3)
Dworkin points out that she never argued what you claim she did:
Dworkin rejected that interpretation of her argument,[65] stating in a later interview that "I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality"[66] and suggesting that the misunderstanding came about because of the very sexual ideology she was criticizing: "Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I do not think they need it."[66]
That's from Wikipedia, the very first hit for her name on Google. Took me about a minute to find. You should do some really basic research before spouting this bullshit. I mean, she is one of the most radical feminists ever, and you still can't even make a rational argument against one the many arguable things she did actually say, and instead just resort to making stuff up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The feminists like Anita Sarkesian and Zoe Quinn always play the victim card but never back up what they say.
Anita Sarkeesian reviewed a bunch of games, or more accurately started a kickstarted to make "Tropes versus women in videogames" and got a shitstorm of harassment. Are you claiming she wasn't in fact a victim of harassment?
And Zoe Quinn got a shitstorm of harassment over a review allegedly paid for by sex, except the review doesn't exist. So she got a shitstorm of harassment for something that never
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:5, Informative)
Anita Sarkeesian reviewed a bunch of games, or more accurately started a kickstarted to make "Tropes versus women in videogames" and got a shitstorm of harassment. Are you claiming she wasn't in fact a victim of harassment?
Would that be, before or after she said she doesn't play video games? Oh she got some harassment, of course in her world criticism = harassment. She even said as much in front of the UN. And of course one can't forget that she refuses to debate anyone, or anything she says. But wants her garbage to be put in place in schools, and used as teaching material. Well that seems great, how'd that work out for Jack Thompson and his "games cause people to become psychopaths" bit.
And Zoe Quinn got a shitstorm of harassment over a review allegedly paid for by sex, except the review doesn't exist. So she got a shitstorm of harassment for something that never happend. Still going to claim she wasn't a victim of harassment?
You still can't figure it out huh? It wasn't a review, it was favorable coverage. She got mentions over a pile of other indie games, not once but several times. Those articles were written by the same person, without disclosure. And if I remember right, I posted the links on that to you the last time. You simply got all upset and stuck to the "but it was a review" which of course is what anti-gg people have been saying for a year, which gg folks haven't said. Of course one can't forget the amount of harassment that she's engaged in, like doxing the owner of a credit collection company, [reddit.com] or Of course you have to be pretty damn pathetic to dox a bunch of 30 year old loners and virgins who are already a mental wreck. [knowyourmeme.com]Of course she also belonged to helldump(part of SA), which was a notorious group of doxers who drove at least one person to suicide. [reddit.com] Yeah great face, for anti-harassment.
Of course, one can't forget that PC gamer deleted all of Tyler Wilde's articles either. You know why? Because he was shacked up with Anne Marie Lewis who was a Ubisoft comm. associate. PC gamer believed that the articles were biased, and deleted them all and went further to have all existing search results on those articles purged.
It seems what happened is a bunch of bullies picked on some people and are now deeply upset that other people sympathise with the victims of the harassment. Well crap, what did you think would happen?
Well it appears people didn't want to hear anything about her, or her little talk going by the polling that SXSW had up. So she went crying off to twitter when she discovered that the GG panel was approved, and they pulled it on both.
But I can't really blame SXSW. Considering the amount of crap that GG has put up with in the last year, it becomes more of a safety issue for pro-GG individuals. Since there have been at least a dozen confirmed bomb threats where GG has had their talks, panels and so on in the past. The most recent of course was the SPJ Airplay event, where the building was evacuated because of another credible threat that someone wanted to blow up pro-GG people.
Can't forget people like Geordie Tait either, who said he wanted to use sarin gas to kill pro-GG people at PAX.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Would that be, before or after she said she doesn't play video games?
Depends. Did she do the reviews of the games after playing them or not?
Or is gaming so super special that someone who's not a gamer isn't allowed to start playing, form an opinion and then write about it?
And of course one can't forget that she refuses to debate anyone, or anything she says.
Yeah and? Did Roger Ebert ever engage his readers in debate? You have no right to expect someone to engage you in conversation. That's making a complete
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends. Did she do the reviews of the games after playing them or not?
Or is gaming so super special that someone who's not a gamer isn't allowed to start playing, form an opinion and then write about it?
Well no one knows if she's played the games she's supposedly writing on. Though she has had people play them, in order to choreograph specific things in order to make up a talking point. The hitman section in the stripclub dressing room would be a good instance of that.
Perhaps it's just me, but if I was writing on a subject, I'd actually turn around and learn about it before writing about it. Especially if I want to have what I'm writing, be used as an academic source and for teaching materials. But who knows, maybe you have a much lower standard than most people, and are perfectly okay with that.
Yeah and? Did Roger Ebert ever engage his readers in debate? You have no right to expect someone to engage you in conversation. That's making a completely unreasonable demand on their time.
Roger Ebert never stated that his work should be used as an educational tool. She has. Of course people have offered her upwards of $10k to her, or the charity of her choice to have an open debate on what's she's written and she's never responded.
That's blatantly rewriting history there. It was over a review of depression quest that the whole thing started. You know the one that didn't exist.
Nope, the only person who's rewriting history is you. I've posted the articles for you before, and it was favorable coverage. You know, the ones that existed. Kind of like the stuff that was written by anna anthropy as well and another indie game developer, who anna was shacked up with and writing about. And there's the friends of hers she would write about and not disclose it.
Good point! That entirely justifies harassing Sarkeesian and Quinn.
So you keep saying, so why are you justifying the harassment of pro-GG people? Of course, you might also believe that disagreement and criticism of their work is harassment. Sure explains a lot, especially since most people once they reach highschool have to start defending their work in front of their peers.
I'm lost: who are you talking about now?
The stuff that's pertinent to the discussion. You did know that the polling information on the panels was posted and open. You do know that people voted in such low numbers on Harpers panel that it was declined. And she threw a hissyfit, and so did several other people calling on SXSW to cancel the Open Gaming Society panel.
Confirmed? Where are the police reports?
Well I'm guessing you're in the US, I'm not. So it won't cost you any money. But you can contact the Metro PD of Washington DC, and ask for the police reports on Local 16 bomb threats. They may or may not fill that one, because of the location and they've probably classified it as a possible terrorist event. And you can also give the PD in Miami Florida and ask specifically about the bomb threats at Koubek Center.
Another good point! That entirely justifies the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian.
So that explains why you're openly supporting the harassment of people in Gamergate huh? Sure explains a lot, they're "not the right kind of people" for you.
Narrative control much? (Score:4, Interesting)
There's also Milo Yiannopolous, who calls gamers "overgrown manchildren" and "terminally beta".
Yet he's been quite the thorn in the 'social justice' crowd. If anyone's terminally "beta", it's the social justice warriors that rely on pandering to diversity as well as media gatekeeping to exist. Without both of those, the social justice crowd would be sitting next to Jack Thompson.
It was still two words, as the GP pointed out, in an article providing favorable coverage to 49 other games. But at least you admit it wasn't a review.
Still doesn't excuse Chelsea van Valkerberg's harassment of her ex (and in turn, anyone that dared question her) through the unquestioning media and the courts. Oh, and she still lost her court case despite the money.
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, Anita Sarkeesian, is a victim alright--a professional one.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, Anita Sarkeesian, is a victim alright--a professional one.
Translation: I don't like that the harassment campaign made her and her videos much more popular.
Seriously the whole "professional victim" claims is just poop flinging by people (including you) trying to shout down opinions they don't like. She never set out to raise $160,000 on kickstarter. She set out to raise $6,000.
If the SJWs hadn't tried to bully her off the internet she would have got nowhere near the $160,000 she raised. It's not her faul
Re: (Score:3)
Translation: I don't like that the harassment campaign made her and her videos much more popular.
No. Translation: Anita Sarkeesian gets paid a lot of money for promoting herself as a victim.
Seriously the whole "professional victim" claims is just poop flinging by people (including you) trying to shout down opinions they don't like.
What an delightfully ironic charge, coming from a side that literally wants to criminalize any criticism of its own position.
It's not her fault, it's collectively your fault.
Oh, I'm used to it. I'm a white heterosexual male, so everything bad is ALWAYS my fault.
That also doesn't make her a professional victim
No, the fact that she gets paid to speak about her victimhood and actively publicizes herself as a victim in order to promote those paid speeches is what makes her a professional victim.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Psychopaths play PvP games all of the time, in fact they are the big spenders or the big cheaters, winning by skill means nothing to them, winning is all there is. Those are the players you have to deal with and while they typically are cowards, they can go off much like a explosive, if they are triggered by an excess of frustration. Would they hunt and stalk the female speakers, if those speakers we seen as victims by the psychopaths, most definitely. Those psychopaths come in all ages, types and levels o
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, what's sad is after spending YEARS ge
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah.. It's just as likely that this 'cancellation' is nothing more than a publicity stunt design to 'signal boost' 'awareness' of the 'problem.'
If people can not agree, disagree and embrace new ways of thinking in a safe and secure place that is free of online and offline harassment, then this marketplace of ideas is inevitably compromised."
Interesting. Marketplace of ideas, eh? I guess this guy's been watching certain vids on youtube. Too bad his 'new way of thinking' is newspeak jargon for 'politically correct' speech, which has no room for any other kind.
And then you will see: there is no review. (Score:5, Interesting)
The review does not exist. If it does, I'm sure you can post a link to the review or a reputable archive such as the wayback machine. Two things to note, in order to pre-empt a bunch of non-review links I've been given before:
a) two words is not a review.
b) A mere mention along the lines of "Zoe Quinn (who you may remember from such games as Depression Quest) is doing something else which I'm now talking about" is also not a review of the game.
Now as I'm sure you're an honest, upstanding chap, I'm sure you will have no trouble providing me the evidence for what has essentially been the rallying cry.
I also fully expected to get modded down for this because it seems nothing is quite so trollish as actually demanding hard evidence. I've got Karma to burn so bring it.
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:4, Informative)
+1 funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Loved the humor you two a/cs, even if the moderator is too PC, I laughed. Also GGP is not a -1, troll, people are sick of the politically correct narrative and it is their way of rebelling.
This reminds me of my sister in law. I was teasing my brother, and he was smiling and happy, and she misunderstood the teasing as insults. She came screaming across and had a go at me. The smile on my brothers face dropped, like "oh no not again", and he tried to calm her down, explain that we were joking and he was having fun.
She insisted we spend the holiday apart after that, she couldn't simply admit she was wrong, it had to become a PC thing.
She doesn't interact in social situations much, and isn't use to the concept of ragging or teasing for fun. So she doesn't know how to behave in groups among friends, and they try to avoid her.
In short, she's a real cunt who can't admit she's wrong and makes REAL problems from her IMAGINED issues. For us, we had to find another hotel at peak season, which meant walking 2 miles with heavy bags on a hot summers day with no water. Fucking cow.
I see the same things here with these people. They don't interact much with real people in the real world, and so don't get to develop the thicker skin needed to be happy in social situations.
So the take actions which do serious harm, in order to be protected from the most minor imagined slight. As if their slight is more important than the real harm to free speech they're doing.
Re:+1 funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's see... you referred to your sister in law both as a "cunt" and as a "cow". I don't think the issues are only at her end.
Re:+1 funny (Score:5, Insightful)
people are sick of the politically correct narrative and it is their way of rebelling.
So join the conversation. Explain to the thin-skinned whiners how to distinguish between malicious threats and mock teasing. You might even learn something in the process about about why your sis-in-law seems like such "a real cunt who can't admit she's wrong" while you're so willing to accept that your teasing could have been legitimately misinterpreted.
The problem on the internet seems to be that a minority of the "sick of PC narrative" people express their opinions with bomb threats. Seriously? That doesn't do anyone any good. There's extremists on both sides. The rest of us should keep them as pariahs: demonstrations of how not to behave.
Re:+1 funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:+1 funny (Score:5, Insightful)
One would think that trying to organize a "discussion panel" would imply they are interested in a conversation.
There is a slight chance that this particular set of organisers was indeed looking for an open, honest, critical conversation. From experience I would be surprised if this were the case. Surprised as in "Jesus swings by and turns my glass of water into Pinot Grigio" surprised. I study subjects from the social sciences, I have had to deal with this issue and the people pushing it for several years now. And my patience and goodwill have both been worn thin.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One would think that trying to organize a "discussion panel" would imply they are interested in a conversation.
And closing the panels (because bad people) would indicate that they aren't very interested in such a conversation.
Re:+1 funny (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't. There's no conversation possible. Disagreeing with the whiners is "harassment", trying to explain anything to them is mansplaining.
Actually, the last few bomb threats have been called in AGAINST the "sick of the PC narrative" groups.
Re:+1 funny (Score:5, Insightful)
people are sick of the politically correct narrative and it is their way of rebelling.
So join the conversation. Explain to the thin-skinned whiners how to distinguish between malicious threats and mock teasing.
You're not allowed to. Haven't you heard? Expressing an opinion contrary to the narrative is a micro-aggression that compromises the safe space. As such, it cannot be tolerated.
I wish I were being sarcastic, but I'm not. :(
Re:+1 funny (Score:4, Insightful)
You have that backwards. The only credible bombthreats that have repeatedly forced the police to hold evacuations came FROM the politically correct crowd.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Browse slashdot at -1 and learn something. Of those, a very small percentage make a sport out of getting a rise out somebody, anybody. They are very much like the script kiddies who try to assemble a bot net for the fun of it. We call these people ***. To try to infer something about their race, gender or political views is quite naive. You get black guys posting "nigger", women harassing women, it's just about getting a reaction. So to say that it is a bunch of men who hate women is just stupid. It's j
Re:+1 funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Woman says that while enjoyable just maybe there might be some sexism or even misogyny in some games people enjoy
This is a gross misrepresentation of Sarkeesian's ongoing attacks on video games and the people who play them (she seems to especially hate the Japanese for some reason), as well as her motives for engaging in these attacks. I don't remember Jack Thompson, clueless asshole that he was, begging for donations every time someone said something mean to him on the Internet. Remember the "I Hate Jack Thompson" t-shirts? How about the "Beat Up Jack Thompson" Flash game? I'm guessing you don't, even though they existed. Attacking people for a harmless hobby will cause them to answer in kind whether you have a dick or not, and rightfully so. Morality police have no place in a free society.
As for "this describes gamergate perfectly", "GamerGate" was never a group of people, as you seem to believe; it was a hashtag on Twitter dot com. As such, anyone could use it: Gamers, trolls, feminists, racists, Navy SEALS, ISIS, Beliebers, you name it. What's more is that it existed for two months before Sarkeesian stuck her nose in in an obvious bid to be relevant, so your post reads like "wet streets cause rain". Some of the gamers who used the tag in good faith accomplished quite a bit, most notably stronger disclosure rules from the FTC regarding affiliate links in game reviews. Others seemed to be using it to try to get laid, as there was a large number of attractive women using the tag. And, of course, the trolls, Poes, and shitposters that show up whenever anything of the slightest interest happens.
It also had the side effect of compelling washed-up minor celebrities like Wil Wheaton, John Scalzi, and others to accidentally out themselves as extreme left-wing psychopaths. Their insane rantings, which can be summed up as, "All nerds are evil! Except me. Only I know how a lady should be treated, as I am the supreme gentleman", would have been amusing if not for the fact that they seem willing to actually, physically murder people for being mean to their crushes on the Internet. And by "being mean to", I mean "criticizing the asinine ideas of".
Re: (Score:3)
what a spoiled little child you are. How about you call your mommie and complain to her.
And this is exactly the kind of asshole response you get when you're a white heterosexual male and you dare complain about anything. Just another one of our wonderful PRIVILEGES.
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:5, Informative)
You idiot. She was making a wider point about games that were overtly misogynistic, and said "what if someone made a game where you have to kill all men", as in how terrible would that be and what outrage it would cause among anti-feminists, and how hypocritical it is when they are fine with games that are about raping or killing women.
Stop being so PC and reacting to every carefully edited down quote as if it is a personal threat. Do your research before getting offended.
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:4, Insightful)
You idiot. She was making a wider point about games that were overtly misogynistic, and said "what if someone made a game where you have to kill all men"
Doesn't that cover most shoot-'em-up games? If that was her point, she could probably have picked a better example.
Re:SJW, please go dai! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's just an issue that's gotten too polarized (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's just an issue that's gotten too polarized (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of those things that SXSW doesn't want to burn a lot of calories on trying to wrangle. SXSW is still mostly focussed on music and movies. Nerds fighting over video game politics are not in the wheelhouse.
Put another way, you go to SXSW to have a great time. You do not go there because you want to fight over ideology. Nobody from the alt-rock music scene is making angry Tweets because the alt-country guys have a venue, nor vice versa. As far as SXSW is concerned, both factions are music fans who might find common ground, but otherwise are not interested in open warfare.
Activists on games, they're not so chill. (They'll become chill, after gaming has passed through the "Fonzie Barrier," where rebellion and fear mellow and become folksy humor.)
TL;DR: SXSW isn't interested in burning resources on your gay slapfight over who's right on the Internet.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that there is money to be made in continuing to pick at the scab, rather than letting it heal. If you're running an online news/opinion outlet, then stories on issues like this are guaranteed page-views and ad-views. Hell, if you get a flamewar going in the comments section, then you've got hundreds of people refreshing the page constantly (more adviews), posting fresh replies, then going back to refreshing the page to watch for people following up on their posts. Meanwhile, an informative ne
SAFE secure SPACE there is your problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you define disagreement as harassment, there is no way to have discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
It works the other way, too. If you define harrassment as a disagreement...
Re:SAFE secure SPACE there is your problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
The people who shut this down didn't want a discussion. Seeing as it was #GamerGate and the Anti GamerGaters, and the Anti GamerGaters have a history of shutting down discussions faking threats, and in general wholesale fabrication,I have little doubt where this came from.
Re:SAFE secure SPACE there is your problem. (Score:4)
That's some next level lying even from you Amimojo. It's anti-gamergate that has doxers and helldump posters in their midst, anti-gamergate that has mailed people knives, syringes, and dead animals, anti-gamergate that has been caught threatening itself or faking things, anti-gamergate that has called in multiple credible bomb threats forcing the evacuation of multiple events.
Re: (Score:3)
Great, here's an idea. Go over to /r/Kotakuinaction, and ask this question: "How many of you would support an open investigation of GG by the FBI?" You want to know what the answer would be? Go right ahead. Funny that, isn't it? Every time there's been a threat, dox of a pro-GG individual, or whichever everyone hopes that there is an investigation because one can already figure out where the threats are coming from. Especially when the big voices in anti-GG are those who've harassed, doxed, or tried
Re: (Score:3)
There is an open investigation of GG by the FBI. No need to start one, it began a year ago.
Look, it's even documented on the shitty GG wiki: http://gamergate.wikia.com/wik... [wikia.com]
Muckrock has some proof: https://www.muckrock.com/news/... [muckrock.com]
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US... [upi.com]
Perhaps you should stop wishing and realize that there are investigations of the harassment.
Re: (Score:3)
Now if only you'd hold your own to those standards. Oh, wait, that would mean you'd need to do something about the fact Zoe's been caught committing perjury, Sarkeesian's been caught committing plagiarism, and Harper's practically pathological in doxing everyone she dislikes.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, because GG called in bomb threats on themselves:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US... [upi.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
South Park has been covering this stuff brilliantly this season. If you haven't seen it, watch Safe Spaces [cc.com]. It covers the problems with the idea of "safe spaces" far better than I ever could.
Also relevant is Stunning and Brave [cc.com] which covers SJWs better than I ever could - the people whose threats caused the panels to be pulled in the first place. (In case anyone was unclear, a bunch of gamers wanted to do a panel about anti-gamers trying to ruin the online community. The anti-gamers responded by calling bomb
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you define harassment (including rape and death threats) as disagreement, you're an idiot.
Re:Sadly you don't even need to disagree (Score:2, Interesting)
Sadly you don't even need to disagree. A statement of fact taken the wrong way counts as harassment.
I have no doubt that it is the people who insist on Safe Spaces, that are making the threats. Their ideas are old and week and don't stand up to any refutation.
Re: (Score:3)
If there was a real death threat, why is there no police report, and why did the target never actually leave her house?
Also, why did she make a death threat on herself?
One of the panels was about conflicts of interest (Score:5, Informative)
Within game journalism. Hosted by The Open Gaming Society. Lynn Walsh was slated to speak.
Had nothing to do with harassment, unless the fact that Gawker apologists keep sending them bomb threats and trying to portray them as some kind of anti-women terrorist group counts. They pulled the same shit at an SPJ meeting, crickets from the press.
Re:One of the panels was about conflicts of intere (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why it gets no coverage. No-one is falling for it
I disagree. It's because the aGG movement (such that it is) is scared in rational discourse, knows they can't back up their stupidity with facts, relies on a false narrative and uses all of that to generate funds from misled people.
Feels like a big con trick to me, and their refusal to engage in calm polite conversation speaks volumes.
Re: (Score:3)
roflmao! Thank you for that laugh.
you can't honestly deny that it is at least presented in a clam and careful manner,
Oh, yes it is very well presented and calm (assuming typo) careful manner. Not going to deny that.
using examples and rational argument to make points
And this is the hilarity. Seriously, you have to be some conspiratorial nut to follow her rational. Sexists developers make sexist games make sexist gamers. Mind you with zero supporting evidence aside from cherry picking and opinion filled fluffy dialogue. Let's also not forget using "research" as in, trying to use scientific words to give credence to her opinion pieces. Her "
Panels (Score:5, Informative)
FWIW, the cancelled panels and some info from Googles cache:
SavePoint: A Discussion on the Gaming Community
We are attempting to organize a panel that we’d like to hold at SXSW 2016’s Interactive (Gaming) conference. The panel will focus heavily on discussions regarding the current social/political landscape in the gaming community, the journalistic integrity of gaming’s journalists, and the ever-changing gaming community, video game development, and their future. We will encourage honest critique and open dialogue between panelists and audience members, and will attempt to create a space where we can all speak on the social-political issues.
Speakers:
Lynn Walsh
Mercedes Carrera
Nick Robalik
Perry Jones
Level Up: Overcoming Harassment in Games
A panel from experts on online harassment in gaming and geek culture, how to combat it, how to design against it, and how to create online communities that are moving away from harassment. The panel will dive into data around abuse in larger gaming communities. One of our panelists will talk about about ways to actually develop the social aspects of games - including UI decisions and how they can influence accuracy and usage of reporting abuse. Another will dive into UX design choices to stymy harassment in social media spaces.
Speakers:
Caroline Sinders
Katherine Cross
Randi Harper
So the "anti-harassment panel" (Score:5, Interesting)
Was run by someone who passes around blacklists and tells people to set themselves on fire. Tells you everything you need to know about these "harassment" accusations.
http://www.ship2block20.com/hidden-face-hypocrisy-randi-harper/
Meanwhile Savepoint had a journalist and a game dev on board.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Both sides were harassed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Both sides were harassed (Score:5, Interesting)
What I don't get is why SXSW didn't just provide them both some security, instead of this reaction. SXSW is a big organization and can afford it, and the amount of security needed is realistically probably not huge. This isn't like hosting a Mohammed Cartoons talk or American Nazi Party talk or something, where you might worry that you'd have a large number of possibly militant people show up to disrupt it.
Re:Both sides were harassed (Score:5, Interesting)
(with sword in hand) "You may not draw me!"
(with pen in hand) "That's why I do."
Re:There was not one panel for each side (Score:4, Insightful)
Enough GamerGaters are pro-harassment (with excuses as to why it's justified) to where you really can't argue that GamerGaters aren't a factor when harassment occurs.
Really? I'm sure you've got some non-citeogenesis articles to prove that. Especially since you won't find people who lean pro saying that harassment or doxing is justified. But then you'll get the "big name people" in the anti-GG side like Randi Harper or Zoe Quinn who have doxed people, have harassed, or have belonged to things like Helldump(which of course has caused people to commit suicide). Saying that doxing, harassing, and all that is perfectly fine. Or people like Bob Chipman saying "No bad tactics, only targets." Which explains a lot in terms of how far SJW's are willing to go.
Re:There was not one panel for each side (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, wait a second here. You absolutely will find people who lean pro saying that harassment and doxing are justified, and furthermore, this whole fucking flap began because some of them doxed and harassed.
Really, let's go look at /r/Kotakuinaction [reddit.com]Hmm...nope...doesn't look like it...and where people made mention of it, they were called out and shouted down. Well let's look at GG's current 8ch board. [8chan.co] Hmm...nope, and when someone tries, they're shouted down and auto-saged off. Let's go look at the8chan archives [8archive.moe]Hmm...again it looks exactly like what happens in GGHQ. Well that's troubling...how about #gamergate? Well even WAM [reddit.com] Didn't find that, and their own data said it was mainly the work of trolls.
Hmm...let's keep looking, how about this one? A journalist wants to know about GGers and harassment/doxing. [reddit.com] Well this could be promising....oh wait...he only wants GGers that explicitly support it, so he's just looking for stuff to re-enforce the narrative that people in GG support it. Well that's a problem...
No freedom of assembly (Score:5, Insightful)
So, GamerGate's first large meetup in Washington, D.C. was disrupted by a bomb threat.
Then, GamerGate's panels in Airplay were disrupted by several bomb threats, despite precautions taken against possible bombs by the SPJ at the venue.
Now, their panel at SXSW was cancelled due to threats of violence and harassment.
The fact that they cannot seem to peacefully assemble, which is defined as a basic human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations (among many other human rights documents), should be concerning no matter what your position on GamerGate is.
Re:No freedom of assembly (Score:4)
What the hell is gamergate and why is it relevant?
Re: (Score:3)
What the hell is gamergate and why is it relevant?
Pro-gamergate people will say that gamergate is a defense of video gamers and a campaign for professional ethics among video game journalists and the developers they cover. Anti-gamergate people will say that gamergate is a misogynistic harassment campaign that arose in response to the introduction of social justice themes among indie game developers.
The truth is neither of those things. Instead, gamergate is a cultural genocide. Journalists and developers sit in one bubble (talking up the atrocities of
Re:No freedom of assembly (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that the threats they keep getting seem to be sent by GamerGate to itself.
Well your first link here let me help you out a bit. That bit from Oliver Campell, that was anti-GG individuals who sent themselves death threats. Not Gamergate individuals sending themselves threats. And of course, if you've ever done a FOIA or ATI, then you already know that vague requests are automatically ignored. But then again, you might not know this but there are several people back in the early days of Gamergate, who have T/S clearances and were doxed by anti-GG individuals. That's enough to refuse any requests on information, simply because the information was related to classified information.
The second link, good old ghazi making shit up to support their narrative. Of course the person in question wasn't a gamergate supporter, they used the gamergate hashtag 35 times. To put that in perspective, the #gamergate hashtag on twitter alone has over 3m+ tweets now, there's 50k+subs on Kotakuinaction, that sub alone gets 500k-4m unique visits a month, it's in the top 50 busiest subs on reddit for subscriber size. That of course isn't even counting boards on 8chan, and voat. Here's the good part, they were a prolific writer for left-leaning sites including DailyKos, Feministing, and the guardian as contributors among other sites. He of course also claimed to be a jew, an isis supporter, a neo-nazi, a feminist, wrote as a feminist, and so on as well.
They also advocated [reddit.com] the restriction of speech, freedom of speech, radical support for freedom of speech, attacks against individuals who were not of their ideological orientation and so on. Among a whole pile of other things. [dailycaller.com]
Predictable (Score:5, Insightful)
Both Sides Are Terrible (Score:3, Interesting)
Thinking of just a recent example, some feminist (Laughing Witch) started and participated in a letter-writing campaign in order to get a particular anti-feminist (Thunderf00t) fired from his job. This letter contained several falsehoods and embellishments, and sought to leverage laws that could potentially lead to an unwarranted arrest. Pretty damn low.
In response to this, Thunderf00t found out where Laughing Witch worked and initiated a campaign to leave negative reviews of that business, since she was one of the company's officers. Answering the call with cult-like obedience, several of Thunderf00t's followers left fake, negative reviews of the business, and also tried writing letters of their own to get the woman fired. They reasoned that anyone else who happened to work for the business simply should have known better than to work alongside such a woman. Just as low.
Out of curiosity, I tried to point out how unethical the actions of both Laughing Witch and Thunderf00t were. Talk about bonkers. On the SJW side, Laughing Witch was of course justified, and any criticism of her tactic was somehow victim blaming. On the MRA side, any employees who would be harmed were just acceptable collateral damage in a round of karmic justice. On both sides, reasoned argument was something no longer considered of any use; instead, silencing the opponent (somewhat viciously) was considered the only option.
Both sides of this thing now view the debate as a war, and both sides are resorting to ever more despicable tactics.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's talk tactical ethics. I don't follow this battle closely, but if I ignore the underlying issues and accept the facts as you present them, the MRAs' lack of concern about collateral damage means that both sides are *not* equally terrible.
Whatever the ethics of attacking your debate opponent's career, attacking their coworkers' careers is definitely not okay. Whichever side is doing it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Both Sides Are Terrible (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair to them it's really hard to get anything like an unbiased picture of anything remotely related to discrimination in gaming. You can find content about this that covers it as a harassment campaign against a business by 'MRAs' to attempts to get a scientist fired by an 'SJW' based on letters full of lies. The coverage invariably matches the underlying position of the organisation or forum that it features on.
Re: (Score:3)
So tell me again who is using despicable tactics?
Both Laughing Witch and Thunderf00t's followers are using despicable tactics. This is not an either-or situation.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice diversion, now get back on topic: the behaviour of the WItch and Thunderf00t, *their* words and actions.
Wrong. That is not the topic. The topic, which you are diverging from, is the difference between the two camps. However, you are also disingenuously ignoring a critical point: you don't have to explicitly call for certain behavior to wield it. If you know how your audience will react if you make a specific statement, then you're culpable for the results of your actions. You have a right to say what you want, not to be free from consequences — one of those is being held responsible for your actions.
Panel of experts? (Score:5, Informative)
The "panel" included Randi Harper - one of the most notorious trolls on the internet. I can only guess she's considered an expert because she has engaged in so much abuse that she can spot it a mile away.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-j... [breitbart.com]
This person is a horrible human being who should not be given any kind of soap box from which to speak.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, you don't like the source. But you can't dispute any of the information that it provides.
It's quicker and easier to make shit up (like the lies you made up about me supporting harassment upthread, for example) than it is to dispute them. That doesn't make the dubious sources and spurious claims correct however.
After one has read 25/25 articles coming from the argumentum ad taurus excermentum school of debating, I'm not going to waste time to determine whether the 26th is full of junk as well
Wow, this shit is hilarious. (Score:4, Funny)
THIS WAS A PRO-GAMERGATE PANEL YOU NUMBNUTS. MERCEDES CARRERA WAS ONE OF THE PANELISTS.
I'm not even IN it anymore and I knew that, but people here see "panel about harassment in gaming at SXSW" and they go full fucking cultist. Incidentally, this kind of dumb shit is WHY I'm not in it. The longer any given group exists on the internet, the more likely it will turn into a bunch of howler monkeys that get triggered and assblasted by words they're afraid of. The fact that tumblr SJ trash did it first and loudest doesn't make this any less idiotic.
Hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:4, Informative)
That's okay, when a group of journalists are having a talk about the ethical problems of game journalists, and they get a threat and the building has to be evacuated it doesn't even make the news. But so far there are 20+ articles about this already. There possibly couldn't be an agenda here right? Or that they all came out mere hours within one another.
Kinda...funny isn't it?
Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ [archive.is]
Recode: https://archive.is/CsPAb [archive.is]
Motherboard: https://archive.is/9oM4o [archive.is]
Techraptor: http://techraptor.net/content/... [techraptor.net]
Kotaku: https://archive.is/e1xwK [archive.is]
Gamasutra: https://archive.is/QYNkB [archive.is]
KeyeTV: https://archive.is/cKcLx [archive.is]
Gamespot: https://archive.is/QYNkB [archive.is]
BleedingCool: https://archive.is/Wtpxb [archive.is]
Polygon: https://archive.is/l8vpD [archive.is]
Fusion: https://archive.is/zX39U [archive.is]
Austin360: https://archive.is/GXYap [archive.is]
The Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ [archive.is]
TheOuthousers: https://archive.is/R5kPl [archive.is]
Bits NYTimes: https://archive.is/5wR5Y [archive.is]
Arstechnica: https://archive.is/JLsE2 [archive.is]
Mashable: https://archive.is/LQMGq [archive.is]
Slate: https://archive.is/bjRO3 [archive.is]
Engadget: https://archive.is/THkXN [archive.is]
Jezebel: https://archive.is/iQg6P [archive.is]
KVUE: https://archive.is/p41HD [archive.is]
SXSW's response illustrates the problem (Score:3)
Dear SXSW:
Grow some balls.
Lewis' Law (Score:3)
Re:Lewis' Law (Score:4, Insightful)
Pure xkcd stuff... (Score:3)
Time for grownups and law enforcement to step in (Score:3)
In all seriousness, violence or threats of the same are not part of 'debate'. If anyone is laboring under that illusion, it's high time grownups stepped in, preferably with law enforcement of the anti-terrorist kind in tow. In civilized countries, death threats could easily lead to jail time.
All bullies are always the enemy (Score:3)
Up at the top of the page it says "News for nerds".
OK, fellow nerds, let's remember our school days.
Remember how quick the thugs were to yell "He started it!"? Remember the adults who were supposed to keep things safe dismissing assaults in the restroom and saying we just needed to learn how to handle teasing? Remember how the bullies traveled with entourages who thought they were cool?
People like that are running around in adult bodies now. We all have the background to see them for what they are. We must oppose them immediately and unconditionally, or we are on their side.
Hint: the instant you start making any excuse for any threat of violence from any side of an argument, you are in the wrong.
Self-generated "harassment" by SJW's (Score:3)
Good money says that certain kinds of perpetual victims cancelled something for fear of hearing the truth.
Re:Online harassment in gaming?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Do they mean shit talking? I thought talking shit was part of the appeal of online gaming? What am I missing here?
People having varying personalities and approaches to social interactions. Some people (male and female) enjoy trash talk, as friendly competitive banter. Others find it aggressive, stressful, immersion-breaking, and plain annoying.
Plus there is trash talk, and there is plain insulting, discriminatory aggressions (racist, sexist, homophobic, ageist and ableist, notably), sexual harassment, and real-life threats and stalking (and there are sometimes 'real' consequences to this, with 'doxxing', 'swating', harassing family or co-workers/bosses, etc.).
There's also a matter of time and place. Starting to insult a complete stranger after he crushed you, flooding the chat with stupid binds, calling cheat and starting a voteban, isn't "friendly banter". You're just an annoying sore loser brat. Same with bragging about 'winning' a round, in a completely unbalanced game because of stacking or pros going pub-stomping, with people leaving, or going spectator to join the 'winning' team, even after having been switched to the 'losing' team as part of autobalancing.
And there's also the problem of griefing and cheating in multiplayer games, not just trash talking. They are often linked.
Of course, this is mostly a mirror of society (and kids imitating adults), it has absolutely nothing to do with computers, Internet, and gaming in particular, although the sense of anonymity and distance sure make it easier for people to 'slip'.
In some cases, people don't use smileys when they should too, particularly with strangers. There is a huge difference between a "Go die! :P" and "go die". Even when the person might actually have the exact same state of mind.
One important thing to note is that trash talkers in a carebear world, would just find things boring. While the opposite situation can lead to depression and suicide. A good society has to take the side of people more sensible and vulnerable to aggression, even if in many cases, this is actually just 'friendly' (albeit often clumsy) trash talk.
To summarize, you can trash talk all you want with your friends who enjoy it, particularly when you're on your own server, or isolated from strangers. But you're supposed to tread lightly with strangers, until you know they're receptive to friendly banter. And finally, many aggressive behaviors are just plain annoying, and I'm sure you are of the exact same opinion, most likely very openly. So, when we are talking about these problematic behaviors, just don't take it personally, right? 'Cause that's precisely what you're trying to argue is an error on the part of more sensible persons... Yes, there is overgeneralization in many news articles about it, like on most other subjects. That's not a reason to throw everything out in reaction.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
SJW are not trying to "have a conversation", they are in a pseudo-righteous fight to get more female privileges through pseudo victimization, in an already gynocentric society. They want to eradicate everything which does not conform to their moral standard. To some extend, they belong to the liberal / progressive faction very much against freedom and what it stands for. They have successfully banned men-focused association from campuses, and restrict everything which does not conform to their pseudo-egalit
Re: (Score:3)
Check the date on that article. A week before the Telegraph article I linked.
That Tab article is concealing the fact that the SU rejected his attempt to create a society. Of course FemSoc are happy to let him act within their rules - check their fucking rules out : https://drive.google.com/file/... [google.com]
To join FemSoc he'd have to "accept you have privilege over women"
That's total bullshit anywhere, let alone in a Mens Society trying to help men and reduce suicide risks.
Just how much of a fucking bigot are you to
Re: (Score:3)
Holy fuck. You truly are a fucking idiot.
No, the situation was not resolved. He set up a group (as stated in the Tab), the SU said no, FemSoc said, "Be a good little slave and behave for us".
Learn how to read, process information and analyse it before commenting further, your interpretation is facile and false.
the biggest causes of male suicide are the ones that the feminists are trying to address
By refusing men the chance to speak on an equal basis at any FemSoc event, including their own subsidiary FemSoc-MenSoc events?
Oh please.
Fuck this, you're a blithering imbecile, I can't win an argumen
Re:So, the bullies win (Score:5, Informative)
I will continue to play violent game because its fun. No body will tell me what I should or should not play.
Not a native english speaker, I presume?
No one is telling what you should play. Let's take Anita Sarkeesian. The people she's actually criticizing are game DEVELOPERS for overusing tropes.
That's it.
But YOU are taking her criticism of GAMES and developers personally.
"She's saying I'm a bad person when she says the games are bad."
But she's not saying the games are wholly bad, she's criticizing the tropes. That's it. Your problem is that your identity is too tied up in the games. In other words, you need to grow up.
Re: (Score:3)
If Anita dislikes what is being made by the game developers, why doesn't she make her own games? People buy what the developers make, that is why they make it.
Instead of trying to tell people what they should do, why doesn't she do it herself? She is trying to tell people how to act and what to think, which is always wrong.